Remove Article Remove Fair Use Remove Licensing Remove Litigation
article thumbnail

When is it Fair Use to Use a Photo to “Illustrate” an Article?

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

One of the practices that has generated a sizeable number of disputes and rulings is the use of photos to illustrate articles. There is no shortage of articles being generated online, and often those content producers simply canvass the web to find a suitable photo. These three cases address fair use in this context.

Fair Use 130
article thumbnail

Fourth Circuit Issues a Bummer Fair Use Ruling–Philpot v. IJR

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

In 2016, the defendant IJR published an article/listicle titled “15 Signs Your Daddy Was a Conservative.” In 2013, Philpot uploaded the photo to Wikimedia Commons, which is governed by the standard Creative Commons license requiring attribution. IJR argued that Philpot provided free licenses to the work. Amount Taken.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

The stubborn memory of generative AI: overfitting, fair use, and the AI Act

Kluwer Copyright Blog

Litigation against these models has piled up at the same breakneck speed as they have gained ground. And at the core of this litigation lies a common claim: generative AI has a memory problem. This is an important shift from past litigation involving copy-reliant technologies and therefore merits a fresh look.

Fair Use 111
article thumbnail

The Art Critic’s Role in Fair Use

Patently-O

Apparently Vanity Fair commissioned Warhol to make an illustration for its 1984 article on Prince. As part of that process, VF obtained a license from Goldsmith, but only for the limited use “as an artist’s reference in connection with an article to be published in Vanity Fair Magazine.” 17 U.S.C. §

Fair Use 118
article thumbnail

Let’s Go Hazy: Making Sense of Fair Use After Warhol

Copyright Lately

Five things to know about the Supreme Court’s new purpose-driven fair use opinion in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (“ Warhol “) is that relatively rare fair use case in which both the original and follow-on works were more or less directly competing in the same market. Andy Warhol Foundation v.

article thumbnail

Supreme Court Holds Warhol’s “Orange Prince” Not Transformative, Not Fair Use

IP Tech Blog

The Supreme Court recently upheld an appellate court’s ruling that Andy Warhol’s use of a photograph of Prince as a reference for a collection of screen prints is not fair use – to the extent his foundation decided to license them at least. Goldsmith, Andy Warhol not only used Ms. Goldsmith et al, Case No.

article thumbnail

US Supreme Court: Warhol Foundation’s Use of Prince Photograph Not Fair Use

LexBlog IP

In 1981 Andy Warhol used a photograph made by Lynn Goldsmith as reference for an illustration of the musician Prince. Vanity Fair magazine had hired Warhol to make the illustration; it was to accompany an article about Prince in the magazine’s November 1984 issue. Goldsmith had issued a limited license for this purpose.